Sauce for the Goose…

During the civil case brought by Danny Masterson’s accusers, Scientology vehemently fought to be allowed to force former members into religious arbitration per the Enrollment Agreement.

Earlier this year however, Scientology suffered a stunning blow when the California Supreme Court ruled that the “church” could not in fact hold former members to the contract after exercising their right to no longer practice the doctrine.

Scientology argued that the signatories must be bound in perpetuity but the Courts disagreed and posed an interesting question: “If someone took a Scientology course and signed a service contract, and then 20 years later was run over on the street by a Scientology van, would they be obliged to take that dispute to religious arbitration?”

COS’ response was a resounding “YES” which brings up an interesting and timely query: has Scientology violated its own Enrollment Agreement?

Scientology insists the agreement must be held sacrosanct and inviolable.

So what about this clause:

Of course no one in their right mind would wish for Scientology to intervene in such an event. After all Lisa McPherson stands as a sad and tragic example of the results of such intercession. This is merely proffered as an example of the fluidity with which Scientology follows their own rules.

At issue is the treatment of former member Brandon Reisdorf.

As a former Scientologist, Reisdorf is in the same unique position as Chrissie Bixler. He would have signed the same (or similar) Enrollment Agreement that she signed.

David Miscavige wants to force the Courts to acknowledge Scientology’s right to arbitrate Bixler’s case because of the Enrollment Agreement. He insists this is a matter of protecting First Amendment rights for all religions.

However what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Why would COS insist that Bixler be forced to honor the agreement when they, themselves fail to adhere to it?

Scientology’s newest (2022) hate website dedicated to Leah Remini includes yet another article blaming her for various crimes directed at her former cult. Included in this list is Brandon Reisdorf’s 2016 psychotic episode in which he threw a hammer through a Scientology window.

Did Scientology act according to Reisdorf’s contract with them?

Of course not.

COS viciously and gleefully ignored not one, but two clauses in their own Enrollment Agreement because it suited them at the time.

Further, it should be argued that if the agreement is to be binding for all eternity, world without end, amen, for all current and former members, then Scientology is guilty of Treason for calling the police on Reisdorf.

COS’ Enrollment Agreement clearly states that the signee understands that the Religious Services provided by their Auditor/Ministers/Staff includes all of the following:

The “application of Scientology Ethics and Justice Technology” clearly states that calling the police for any reason involving a Scientologist is a high crime. It is a Suppressive Act.

Demanding that former participants must be held to the same rules as current members thus grants them all the rights as well as the responsibilities outlined in the Enrollment Agreement.

If Chrissie Bixler must (according to COS) present herself to a Comm Ev and the Scientology Justice system because of the agreement she signed, then so too should Scientology be held to their side of this nebulous bargain.

In the case of Brandon Reisdorf, COS did not attempt to fulfill the psychology clause on his behalf nor did they follow their own Ethics policy and handle the hammer incident internally. Instead they chose to acknowledge Reisdorf’s status as a non-member and treated him as they would any other non Scientologist.

Due to this buffet style approach to what COS insists is “sacred scripture” the Enrollment Agreement is trotted out one day for one event and hidden the next when circumstances do not suit.

Either this Enrollment Agreement is binding or it is relative.

Scientology’s own actions clearly prove the latter is true ergo their self righteous indignation at losing to the California Supreme Court is nothing more than posturing and show.